Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flynn (4243357) in view of Jonen (US-Pub 2017/0284412) and Yasuhiko (JPS60169699A)
Regarding claim 1, Flynn discloses an impeller for a gas turbine engine comprising: an impeller hub (36, fig 1) having an impeller leading edge (38, fig 1) and an impeller trailing edge (30, fig 1); and a plurality of bifurcated impeller blades (52, fig 2) arranged on the impeller hub and extending from the impeller leading edge to the impeller trailing edge, each bifurcated impeller blade having a bifurcated pressure side and a bifurcated suction side (all airfoils have a pressure side and suction side); wherein the bifurcated pressure side and the bifurcated suction side of each bifurcated impeller blade separate at a bifurcation point (leading point in air gap 16, fig 2a) and extend to the impeller trailing edge, wherein a reduced flow channel (46, fig 2a) is defined between adjacent bifurcated impeller blades, wherein a blocked zone (16, fig 2a) is defined within each bifurcated impeller blade between the bifurcated pressure side and the bifurcated suction side and extending from the bifurcation point to the impeller trailing edge (fig 2a, the points are bifurcated all the way to the trailing edge), and wherein each of the bifurcated pressure side and the bifurcated suction side extend tangentially from the bifurcation point at different radii of curvature (they both extend from the same point, and any individual line can be defined as a tangent to a radius of curvature as any size can be chosen).
Flynn does not disclose wherein the pressure side and suction side extend to different points at the impeller trailing edge, such that a point where the bifurcated pressure side intersects with the trailing edge and a point where the bifurcated suction side intersects with the trailing edge are separated by a circumferential distance along the trailing edge and the blocked zone is defined between the two points where the bifurcated pressure side and the bifurcated suction side intersect with the impeller trailing edge, wherein the blocked zone is defined along the circumferential distance between the point where the bifurcated pressure side intersects with the impeller trailing edge and the point where the bifurcated suction side intersects with the impeller trailing edge, wherein the blocked zone is open along the impeller trailing edge.
Jonen teaches a radial compressor impeller blade (12, fig 4), wherein the pressure side (9, fig 4), and suction side (8, fig 4) extend to different points along the impeller edge (annotated fig 4 below) , such that a point where the bifurcated pressure side intersects with the trailing edge and a point where the bifurcated suction side intersects with the trailing edge are separated by a circumferential distance along the trailing edge (length of the trailing edge on the annotated fig 4 below) and the blocked zone is defined between the two points where the bifurcated pressure side and the bifurcated suction side intersect with the impeller trailing edge, wherein the blocked zone is defined along the circumferential distance between the point where the bifurcated pressure side intersects with the impeller trailing edge and the point where the bifurcated suction side intersects with the impeller trailing edge (the blocked zone is just the distance between the points along the rear edge of the vane, thus the blocked zone would be between those two points on each side).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the impeller trailing edge disclosed by Flynn by having the pressure side and suction side extend to different points at the impeller trailing edge based on the teachings of Jonen. Doing so would provide a reduction in pressure loss along the trailing edge (par. 0042), as suggested by Jonen.
Yasuhiko teaches a vane (1, fig 4) for an impeller with an internal blocked zone (annotated fig 5 and 6 below), wherein the blocked zone is open along the impeller trailing edge (annotated fig 5 below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the impeller blocked zone disclosed by Flynn by having the blocked zone be open along the impeller trailing edge based on the teachings of Yasuhiko. Doing so is recognized as a structural equivalent (fig 5 vs fig 6 are alternate constructions of the same embodiment), as suggested by Yasuhiko.
PNG
media_image1.png
474
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
560
726
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Flynn discloses wherein the blocked zone is filled with air (fig 2, the gap is an open air gap).
Regarding claim 9, Flynn discloses wherein the bifurcation point is at a position between the impeller leading edge and the impeller trailing edge (fig 2, the bifurcation point is near the midpoint of the impeller).
Regarding claim 10, Flynn discloses wherein each reduced flow channel has a channel inlet (14, fig 1) defined at the impeller leading edge and a channel outlet (16, fig 1) defined at the impeller trailing edge, wherein each outlet is defined circumferentially between a respective bifurcated pressure side of a bifurcated impeller blade and a respective bifurcated suction side of an adjacent bifurcated impeller blade at the impeller trailing edge (the channels are formed between each adjacent blades pressure side and suction side).
Regarding claim 11, Flynn discloses wherein bifurcated impeller blade has a Y-shaped geometry with a stem (fig 2a, the y shape is closed with the stem being the inlet, and then divided in two at the bifurcation point forming a Y shape) of the Y-shape geometry located at the impeller inlet.
Regarding claim 12, Flynn discloses wherein the bifurcated impeller blade comprises a non-bifurcated portion that extends from impeller leading edge to the bifurcation point (at 52, fig 2).
Claims 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flynn in view of Jonen and Drolet (10859096).
Regarding claim 13, Flynn does not disclose a plurality of diffuser elements arranged radially outward from the impeller trailing edge.
Drolet teaches arranging a plurality of diffusor elements (20, 21, fig 1) radially outward from an impeller (17, fig 1) trailing edge.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the impeller disclosed by Flynn by using a plurality of diffusor elements radially outward from the impeller based on the teachings of Drolet. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize diffusors are commonly used to straighten out the flow of a compressor before injection into a combustor.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drolet in view of Jonen, Flynn, and Yasuhiko.
Regarding claim 16, Drolet teaches a gas turbine assembly with a fan (12, fig 1), a combustor section (16, fig 1), a turbine section (18, fig 1) and a compressor section (19, fig 1) with an impeller (17, fig 1) having an impeller hub (main body of 17, fig 1) having an impeller leading edge (side near 14, fig 1), and an impeller trailing edge (side near 20, fig 1)
Drolet does not disclose: a plurality of bifurcated impeller blades arranged on the impeller hub and extending from the impeller leading edge to the impeller trailing edge, each bifurcated impeller blade having a bifurcated pressure side and a bifurcated suction side; wherein the bifurcated pressure side and the bifurcated suction side of each bifurcated impeller blade separate at a bifurcation point and extend to the impeller trailing edge, wherein a reduced flow channel is defined between adjacent bifurcated impeller blades, wherein a blocked zone is defined within each bifurcated impeller blade between the bifurcated pressure side and the bifurcated suction side and extending from the bifurcation point to the impeller trailing edge, and wherein each of the bifurcated pressure side and the bifurcated suction side extend tangentially from the bifurcation point at different radii of curvature, wherein the pressure side and suction side extend to different points at the impeller trailing edge, such that a point where the bifurcated pressure side intersects with the trailing edge and a point where the bifurcated suction side intersects with the trailing edge are separated by a circumferential distance along the trailing edge, , wherein the blocked zone is defined along the circumferential distance between the point where the bifurcated pressure side intersects with the impeller trailing edge and the point where the bifurcated suction side intersects with the impeller trailing edge, wherein the blocked zone is open along the impeller trailing edge.
Flynn teaches an impeller for a gas turbine engine comprising: an impeller hub (36, fig 1) having an impeller leading edge (38, fig 1) and an impeller trailing edge (30, fig 1); and a plurality of bifurcated impeller blades (52, fig 2) arranged on the impeller hub and extending from the impeller leading edge to the impeller trailing edge, each bifurcated impeller blade having a bifurcated pressure side and a bifurcated suction side (all airfoils have a pressure side and suction side); wherein the bifurcated pressure side and the bifurcated suction side of each bifurcated impeller blade separate at a bifurcation point (leading point in air gap 16, fig 2a) and extend to the impeller trailing edge, wherein a reduced flow channel (46, fig 2a) is defined between adjacent bifurcated impeller blades, wherein a blocked zone (16, fig 2a) is defined within each bifurcated impeller blade between the bifurcated pressure side and the bifurcated suction side and extending from the bifurcation point to the impeller trailing edge (fig 2a, the points are bifurcated all the way to the trailing edge), and wherein each of the bifurcated pressure side and the bifurcated suction side extend tangentially from the bifurcation point at different radii of curvature (they both extend from the same point, and any individual line can be defined as a tangent to a radius of curvature as any size can be chosen).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the engine of Drolet to use the impeller based on the teachings of Flynn. Doing so would increase the useful range of flow ratios at any pressure ratio (col 1, lines 54-60), as suggested by Flynn.
Jonen teaches a radial compressor impeller blade (12, fig 4), wherein the pressure side (9, fig 4), and suction side (8, fig 4) extend to different points along the impeller edge (annotated fig 4 below) , such that a point where the bifurcated pressure side intersects with the trailing edge and a point where the bifurcated suction side intersects with the trailing edge are separated by a circumferential distance along the trailing edge (length of the trailing edge on the annotated fig 4 below), wherein the blocked zone is defined along the circumferential distance between the point where the bifurcated pressure side intersects with the impeller trailing edge and the point where the bifurcated suction side intersects with the impeller trailing edge (the blocked zone is just the distance between the points along the rear edge of the vane, thus the blocked zone would be between those two points on each side).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the impeller trailing edge disclosed by Drolet as modified by Flynn by having the pressure side and suction side extend to different points at the impeller trailing edge based on the teachings of Jonen. Doing so would provide a reduction in pressure loss along the trailing edge (par. 0042), as suggested by Jonen.
Yasuhiko teaches a vane (1, fig 4) for an impeller with an internal blocked zone (annotated fig 5 and 6), wherein the blocked zone is open along the impeller trailing edge (annotated fig 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the impeller blocked zone disclosed by Flynn by having the blocked zone be open along the impeller trailing edge based on the teachings of Yasuhiko. Doing so is recognized as a structural equivalent (fig 5 vs fig 6 are alternate constructions of the same embodiment), as suggested by Yasuhiko.
Regarding claim 17, Drolet teaches arranging a plurality of diffusor elements (20, 21, fig 1) radially outward from an impeller (17, fig 1) trailing edge.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 6/11/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 4 under Barr have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yasuhiko.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 6/11/2026, with respect to the claim objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claim 11 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN V MEILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-9229. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Devon Kramer can be reached at 571-272-7118. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEAN V MEILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
